FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
True, but then you had this guy - I think he would of been the top American ace.
LT. COL. BOYD D. "BUZZ" WAGNER, USAAF
P-39 D Aircobra vs. Me-109
- Thread starter lesofprimus
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
LT. COL. BOYD D. "BUZZ" WAGNER, USAAF
The P39 was not a great plane but it was not garbage either. At low altitudes it was .......ok.
Look at how the Russians used them, used them down low and very well. They used them for ground attack, but also as a fighter at lower levels. Turned into a good find for them.
drgondog
Major
As I recall, Buzz was first US ace (O'Hare second) and Bill Fiedler was ONLY US P-39 ace. Both KIFA not combat.
But the first AMERICAN Ace I believe was WC Lance Wade who scored five for RAF by end of November 1941? and scored 22 by Nov 1943 when killed in accident?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yep!
I read somewhere that one of Wagner's last missions was a strike against a Japanese airbase. So devastating was the strike that many airmen realized that even in this early and miserable period of the war that they were going to beat the Japanese. I'll try to find that story....
I read somewhere that one of Wagner's last missions was a strike against a Japanese airbase. So devastating was the strike that many airmen realized that even in this early and miserable period of the war that they were going to beat the Japanese. I'll try to find that story....
I've read that the P40 was very manueverable in the desert campaign against Rommel, much more so than an me109. If the P39 was close to the P40, then outperforming a 109 down on the deck isn't much of a stretch. The Russians were also given P47's and they disliked them very much, while we used it very successfully.
I had always thought the P40 turned like a truck because everything I had read was it fighting Japenese zeros and I was very suprised to read that it was slightly slower than the 109 and spit but could actually outturn both of them. I guess compared to a zero at low speed anything other than a Fokker triplane probably turned like a 747.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
An exceptional pilot's opinion is often not a great source. I could see Wagner making a similar comment about the Zero while flying the P-40 and P-39.
Davparlr I sincerely doubt that!
No'one doubted the superior turn performance of the Zero, esp. not anyone who flew the P-40 6 P-39. The Flying Tigers used B&Z tactics to dispose of the Zero, they NEVER turn fought it, and that is made exceedingly clear!
The Bf-109 F-4 should be able to out-turn the P-40, and so should the Spitfire.
No'one doubted the superior turn performance of the Zero, esp. not anyone who flew the P-40 6 P-39. The Flying Tigers used B&Z tactics to dispose of the Zero, they NEVER turn fought it, and that is made exceedingly clear!
The Bf-109 F-4 should be able to out-turn the P-40, and so should the Spitfire.
I agree we'd be off on a tangent with P-40 v Zero; even successful P-40 pilots didn't think it could outturn the Zero, sustained low speed turn (although the Flying Tigers proper, the AVG, never fought Zeroes by any method,
their opponents were strictly JAAF, mostly Type 97's, though some Type 1's which wasn't so different from the Zero).However on *pilot opinion* of P-39/40 v Bf 109 turning ability I don't agree with you. Lots of Allied and Soviet pilots believed the P-40 and P-39 could out turn the 109. Allied trials found the P-51B could outturn the 109G, and AFAIK all P-40 pilots were convinced they could handily outturn a P-51. Another indirect measure was Japanese trials of their Type 3 (Ki-61 Tony) v Bf-109E and P-40E, they found the Tony superior to either in turn, but the US 5th AF believed the P-40 *could* outturn the Tony (in contrast to other Japanese types). The standard belief and tactic in USAAF 325th FG was that P-40's flying at a certain altitude a little below 10k ft could split ess away from a 109's and recover but too low for a 109 to recover, IOW an 'angles' advantage if not specifically sustained low speed turn advantage.
More on topic in P-39's case Loza in "Attack of the Airacobra's", fullest account of Soviet P-39 ops in WWII AFAIK, though just from their side, says on p.26: "In horizontal manueverability the P-39 was superior at all altitudes to the German fighters...Not once in countless air battles did the Germans attempt to conduct an engagement in a turn". It's previously made clear that the initial comparison is 109F and G, and the intial P-39's were D's and P-400's.
Again this is opinion. It doesn't mean a particular German pilot, or German pilots in general, couldn't have a different opinion. Actual answer in totally non-biased trials would be another issue. Theoretical estimates are not tremendously reliable for turn in the context of real WWII fighter manuevering, IMO.
Joe
JoeB, the P-51 could NOT outturn the Bf-109G, it wasn't even close. The British trials are useless really as the pilots didn't dare go beyond the deployment of the slats, being scared wittless of the loud bang slight notch given on deployment. This is not only made clear by the statements made in those tests, statements such as, "The 109 being embarrased by the opening of its slats" etc etc, but also by several German test pilots and aces, as-well as a Spitfire pilot. This has been discussed many times before though, so no need going any further.
Also a Fw-190 Jabo managed to turn with the P-51B in those very same trials. And one thing is clear from every German comparative trial, the Bf-109 always out-turned the Fw-190, and very easily at that.
As to the P-40 being able to Split-S away from an attacking 109, well that relies very much upon roll rate in which the P-40 is excellent, and it also relies on the closing speed of the attacker. The Fw-190 relied on split-S maneuvers to shake off spitfires, and it always worked, the Spitfire being completely unable to follow the wild maneuver. That having been said neither the Fw-190 or P-40 could outturn the Bf-109 or Spitfire.
Also the myth of the Spitfire being a better turnfighter than the Bf-109 stems from the BoB, where the Emil was in service. The Emil had frequent problems with its slats jamming, making pilots unwilling to enter a tight turn with it, as it could spell certain death from an uncontrollable spin caused by one of the slats jamming. This problem was solved with the introduction of the F series introducing a new operating mechanism, and the Bf-109 could now be thrown into hard turns without having to worry about one slat suddenly jamming. Many of the pilots who had flown the Emil were however still wary about the slats and relied mostly on the B&Z tactics they had perfected in the BoB, but by far the majority took full advantage of extra turn performance added by the slats to out-turn Spitfires in combat.
Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories:
"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it."
Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories:
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
Also a Fw-190 Jabo managed to turn with the P-51B in those very same trials. And one thing is clear from every German comparative trial, the Bf-109 always out-turned the Fw-190, and very easily at that.
As to the P-40 being able to Split-S away from an attacking 109, well that relies very much upon roll rate in which the P-40 is excellent, and it also relies on the closing speed of the attacker. The Fw-190 relied on split-S maneuvers to shake off spitfires, and it always worked, the Spitfire being completely unable to follow the wild maneuver. That having been said neither the Fw-190 or P-40 could outturn the Bf-109 or Spitfire.
Also the myth of the Spitfire being a better turnfighter than the Bf-109 stems from the BoB, where the Emil was in service. The Emil had frequent problems with its slats jamming, making pilots unwilling to enter a tight turn with it, as it could spell certain death from an uncontrollable spin caused by one of the slats jamming. This problem was solved with the introduction of the F series introducing a new operating mechanism, and the Bf-109 could now be thrown into hard turns without having to worry about one slat suddenly jamming. Many of the pilots who had flown the Emil were however still wary about the slats and relied mostly on the B&Z tactics they had perfected in the BoB, but by far the majority took full advantage of extra turn performance added by the slats to out-turn Spitfires in combat.
Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories:
"The Bf 109s also had leading edge slats. When the 109 was flown, advertently or inadvertently, too slow, the slats shot forward out of the wing, sometimes with a loud bang which could be heard above the noise of the engine. Many times the slats coming out frightenened young pilots when they flew the Bf 109 for the first time in combat. One often flew near the stalling speed in combat, not only when flying straight and level but especially when turning and climbing. Sometimes the slats would suddenly fly out with a bang as if one had been hit, especially when one had throttled back to bank steeply. Indeed many fresh young pilots thought they were pulling very tight turns even when the slats were still closed against the wing. For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them.
One had to enter the turn correctly, then open up the engine. It was a matter of feel. When one noticed the speed becoming critical - the aircraft vibrated - one had to ease up a bit, then pull back again, so that in plan the best turn would have looked like an egg or a horizontal ellipse rather than a circle. In this way one could out-turn the Spitfire - and I shot down six of them doing it."
Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories:
"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew the Bf109 could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
But you're not answering my post. Your talking about possible bias in trials, which I already said could be true (but there are no gteed unbiased trials to compare to), and differing opinions of German pilots v Allied, which I also already said could be true.
My point is simply that there were *lots* of opinions that the P-39 and P-40 *could* out turn the 109. See Loza's description from Soviet view, very categorical, that the P-39 was superior and that book is based on lots of Soviet pilot accounts.
Now, with disagreeing German and Allied opinions, why should we just accept German ones? Maybe if we take a strictly German-biased view of everything, but otherwise I don't see why we'd do that. Note, I'm not saying we treat the Allied opinion as fact either.
Joe
Joe, Allied Spitfire pilot Pierre Closterman notes the superior turn performance of the Bf-109 as-well, and so does several Soviet pilots, but most crucially so does aerodynamics and modern day pilots.
These guys fly the birds:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94
As to possible bias in trials, well I don't believe this very much in this case, esp. considering that Fw-190 Jabo, a heavily armored ground attack version of the Fw-190, managed to turn with the P-51B.
The Fw-190 in question:
These guys fly the birds:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94
As to possible bias in trials, well I don't believe this very much in this case, esp. considering that Fw-190 Jabo, a heavily armored ground attack version of the Fw-190, managed to turn with the P-51B.
The Fw-190 in question:
1. I wasn't talking about Spitfires, and I think it goes on a tangent to then compare Spitires with P-39's and P-40's
2. Which Soviet pilots? I gave a specific source.
3. Then why do you conclude the P-51 trial was wrong (I know, slats etc but what alternative trial result do you have?), and Japanese were wrong their Type 3 out turned the 109 (USAAF believed the P-40 out turned the Type 3).
Joe
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Soren, I was just watching an article on the Bf-109 on the History Channel and they were interviewing Gunther Rall on the weaknesses of the Bf-109 and he addressed the slats. He said that, under high speed maneuvering, the slats could extend due to gravity, causing a stall. This seems different than jamming. Have you heard of this before?
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I think I poorly stated my point. I don't think that Wagner thought that the P-40 would out turn a Zero (I did say similar comment, not the same). I think very capable pilots associate their own ability with that of the aircraft. You can put a very capable pilot in the cockpit of a less performing aircraft and he can be very successful. In doing so, he will tend to think highly on his aircraft and have some disdain for the opposing aircraft. I suspect that Wagner was very good at energy managment in the P-40 and P-39 such that he was able to shoot down Zeros. In his mind I am sure he felt the P-40 and maybe the p-39 were superior to the Zero because they did allow him to use this energy management to his advantage. So when you quote a pilots opinion of their aircraft, you have to take into account the ability of the pilot himself, which may taint his opinion of his aircraft and the opposing aircraft.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Dave and JoeB - I think all pilots will form opinions based on their environment and experience. I have to agree with Soren in a turning comparison with a Bf 109 and P-40. With that said, did a P-40 ever out turn a 109 in combat? Possibly - and that's where pilot skill goes into the equation. And Dave - discussing Buzz Wagner - I think he was a notch above his peers, if not more....
Not to go off subject here but you'll find many Soviet pilots who swear the MiG-15 was far superior to the F-86 and in some situations it was - at the same time these folks were never given a chance to fly an F-86....
Not to go off subject here but you'll find many Soviet pilots who swear the MiG-15 was far superior to the F-86 and in some situations it was - at the same time these folks were never given a chance to fly an F-86....
drgondog
Major
General Momyer (33rd) was awarded four (of 8 total) scores over 109s. All in Africa, all in P40's including P40L. He felt the P-40 was superior to both the Mustang and the Me 109F at low altitude in the horizontal.
Ditto for Hershel Green (325th) who scored 11 Me 109s, four in P-40FL over Italy, 3 in P-47 and 4 in P-51, out of his 18.
It was conversations with both that I formed my own opinions that perhaps the P-40 was not so badly outclassed by the Me 109.
Having said this we must remember we are talking about two pretty damn good fighter pilots.
I hesitate to bring up Yeager, who did fly both the 86 and Mig 15 (in rigorous flight tests at Eglin and Edwards) - but he felt both were evenly matched with advantages one way or another, particularly climb rateangle going to MiG. So, One opinion from one who had a lot of time in both. Admittedly his MiG time was in 1953 time frame with the defection MiG.
Not well publicized but he also whacked 3 or 4 MiG's while assigned as air attached to Pakistan in mid 50's while flying the 86 as an 'observer' in their unpleasant disourse..
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
My source states that the P40 could out maneuver any other US Army fighter below 15000 feet and had a particularly good rate of roll, probably better at high speeds than all other US Army fighters.
Well that's my favorite tangent
Actually when you look at specific Soviet and US statements about particular strengths and weaknesses of the F-86 and MiG-15, they pretty much agree: F-86 turned better, dove better; MiG climbed better and had a higher ceiling. Speed advantage depended more on version and altitude but wasn't great either way. Overall I agree there was the usual tendency on each side for successful pilots to rate their plane better overall, but the US and Soviets didn't actually disagree which plane turned better in general: the F-86. And btw simple 'aerodynamics' of wingloading and thrust-weight said the MiG's sustained turn should have been better.Back on topic, the solid consensus on Soviet side AFAIK was the P-39 turned better than the Bf 109. I wouldn't rule out that an extensive modern day trial with all factors totally fair, might not overturn that conclusion, but it was what the Soviets thought, at least mostly, and I don't know of any such trial that disproves it.
Joe
